TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sh. Justin Martin have filed four appeals each. 2. Sh. Jitendra Motwani, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the adjudicating authority has heavily relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Aurangabad vs Caprihans India Ltd. 2006 (195) ELT 240 (Tri. Mum), whereby the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal holding that printing designs/ pictures on PVC sheets resulted into a new product having different commercial identity and amount to manufacture. Sh. Motwani submits that at the time of adjudication, the assessee's appeal were pending before the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted the stay, despite this the adjudicating authority decided the matter relying upon the Tribunal's judgment which was against the assessee. He submits that now the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the matter in favour of the assessee in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. vs CCE 2015 (11) TMI-1170-SC in Civil Appeal No. 563/2006, therefore, the grounds on which the entire demand was confirmed does not exist after the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment. He further submits that the appellant are carrying out on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 (SC) UOI vs Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 8 (SC) CCE & C. Gujarat vs Pan Pipes Resplendents ltd. 2006 (193) ELT 129 (SC) HBD Packaging (P) Ltd. vs CCE Noida 2012 (284) ELT 727 (Tri. Del) Sri Kumar Agencies vs CCE Bangalore 2000 (116) ELT 483 (Trib.) Commissioner vs Sri Kumar Agencies 2007 (216) ELT A24 (SC) Collector of Customs, Madras vs Paper Products Ltd. 2004 (164) ELT 268 (Tri-Del.) M/s Associates Lumbers Pvt. Ltd. Sujjet Sunder Shetty V. Commissioner of C. E. Thane-I 2014-TIOL-449-CESTAT-MUM CCE Aurangabad v. Universal Enterprises 2014 (310) ELT 789 (Tri Mum) CCE Delhi vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC) Mentha & Allied Prodcuts Ltd. vs CCE Meerut 2004 (167) ELT 494 (SC) Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loosers Travelles Co Op. vs CCE Surat-II 2013 (29) STR 352 (Guj.) Mayil Mark Nilayam vs CCE Chennai 2009 (241) ELT 422 (Tri. Chennai) Tisco Ltd. vs CCE Jamshedpur 2006 (199) ELT 855 (Tri-Mum) 3. On the other hand, Sh. J. Nagori, Ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the printed sheet in the facts of the present case is different from plain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been considered in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has held that the printing activity on the PVC sheet is amount to manufacture thereafter this judgment has been heavily relied upon by the Ld. Adjudicating authority. However, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal order. According to the ruling the printing of PVC sheet was held to be activity not amounting to manufacture. The Ld. AR tried to distinguish the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the premise that the said judgment has decided that the Tribunal order is beyond the SCN, therefore, this judgment is not on the merit of the case. We perused the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment which is reproduced below: "In the present case we are concerned with printed PVC sheets which have already borne duty of 25%, having been classified under Chapter 39 Heading 39.20, which deals with plastics and articles thereof. We are concerned here with two Assessment Years 1995-96 and 1996-97. It is an admitted position that classification in the previous year dated 1st March, 1994 has been accepted by the Department and duty has been charged only once and not twice over as sought to be charged at present. Vari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s) by his order dated 30th March, 1999 allowed the assessee's appeal and stated that based on the Assistant Commissioner's finding that no different product except the product under Chapter 39 Heading No. 39.20 emerges after printing, the resultant product could not be liable to duty again as no manufacture could possibly be said to have taken place. 5. This finding of the learned Assistant Commissioner was in the appeal filed by the Revenue overturned as follows : "4. After hearing both sides, we find that the Tribunal, while disposing of the assessee's appeal involving the identical issue has, vide his order No. A/1286/WZB/2005/C-III, dated 12-7-2005 has held that printing of sheets would amount to manufacture, inasmuch as a new product having commercial identity of its own emerges. It is also seen that the respondents have also considered, at one point of time that the process undertaken by them amount to manufacture and, as such, a classification under Chapter 49 was filed. 5. We are in agreement with the above decision that the process of printing undertaken on the plain sheets result in emergence of a new identifiable product having different commercial identity inasmuc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee. No adverse ruling of any court available against the appellant. On the identical product and the activity subject herein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that the printing of PVC sheet is not amount to manufacture, therefore, on the principal of judicial discipline, the said judgment is binding on us. The identical issue has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Glass Industries (supra) wherein the facts involved was whether the printing decoration carried out on the already manufactured glass bottles is amount to manufacture. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered in negative. The relevant paras of the said order are reproduced below: "18. Learned Counsel for the assessee has also placed before us a copy of Trade Notice No. 28/1980 issued by Pune Central Excise and Customs Collectorate with reference to Tariff Item No. 23A(4). It reads thus :- "Attention of the Trade is invited to the Item No. 23A of the Central Excise Tariff. 2. It is clarified for the information of the Trade that Glassware decorated in a different factory after the receipt of duty paid plain glassware would not be again liable to duty/differential duty under Tariff It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. ED/SB 682/84-A is erroneous inasmuch as the process of printing is being carried out in a separate premises as found by the Tribunal and such process is not `manufacture' within the meaning of the Act. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 767 of 1991 has to be and is hereby allowed. The order of the Tribunal as well as those of the Collector and Assistant Collector are set aside. The show cause notice issued by the Revenue to the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 767 of 1991 is quashed. 22. It follows that the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8316 of 1994 filed by the Union of India has to be and is hereby dismissed. 23. Insofar as Civil Appeal No. 2882 of 1993 is concerned, the contention of the appellant has to be accepted on the facts of the case. It is not in dispute that the printing on the bottles is also carried out in the same factory where the bottles are manufactured and the ultimate product which happens to be the excisable item at the gate of the factory is the printed bottle as such. Hence, the value of printed bottles including printing charges is the assessable value of the excisable goods and duty is chargeable thereon. The deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y does not change. They continue to be bottles and, therefore, it cannot be said that but for the process of printing, the bottles will serve no purpose or are of no commercial use. However, while holding so, the Court drew a distinction between a case where the printing on the bottles was also carried out in the same factory where the bottles were manufactured and a case where the printing on the bottles was being carried out in a separate unit. The Court finally held that if the printing and decoration etc. on such bottles was carried out in a premises different from that in which the bottles were manufactured, the value of the printing will not be includible while determining the assessable value of the excisable goods for computing the excise duty. 9. In the present case, it is clear from the impugned judgment that for accepting the stand of the assessee that it had a separate unit for carrying out the process of decoration etc. on the glassware, the High Court has taken note of the fact that the four show cause notices issued after 21st May, 1984, pertained to the period during which the goods were cleared by the assessee under the price list finally approved on 7th October ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts, namely uncoated paper and coated paper cannot be accepted. Uncoated paper emerges at one stage of the manufacturing process of coated paper. A reading of the exemption notification would clearly show that it grants an exemption from payment of duty on paper and paper board articles made therefrom upto clearance of 3500 Mts. When the same is manufactured from the stage of pulp and using non-conventional raw material. The objective is apparently to promote use of non-conventional raw material in making paper, paperboard and articles of paper and paperboard. If the interpretation sought to be given by the Revenue is accepted, it will defect the very objective. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to uphold the view taken by the Commissioner affirming the demand under the show cause notice. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal." 4. After going through the matter minutely and hearing the Counsel for the parties, we find that the aforesaid conclusion is legally sustainable and there is no error in the view taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly these appeals are dismissed." Dealing with the same product, the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Paper Pr....